I know your argument for why we support heterosexual marriage (for the children, from what I can tell) but how exactly does that affect you?

Because the social statistics on children born to a married couple (note, "born to", not even "raised by") versus those born to single mothers are staggeringly different. The single biggest determinant of poverty among any group in our society is not race, gender, religion, or nation of origin, but the rate of children born to single mothers within that group. Those differences affect how productive our society is as a whole, and how much of that productivity is spent dealing with the various problems that children of unwed mothers creates.

It's in the interest of the rest of society to make that number as low as possible. And before someone goes there, it's not about getting people to marry *after* they have children, and it's not even about making sure that children are raised by two people who are married. It's about ensuring that when a child is born, we know who the biological father is and can legally require him to care for the child without requiring the mother to seek this via the courts or having paternity tests or dealing with a case where he's moved out of state, or any of a number of problems that can arise.

Why do you suppose so many states have adopted common law marriages? If a man and a woman live together as a couple for X years, the state assumes they're married. If the woman has a child, the common law husband is assumed to take parental responsibility. Note, that at no time in our history have we ever applied common law marriage to *** couples. The reason is quite obvious, right?

That's why it makes no sense to apply the legal status of marriage to a *** couple. It's not that they can't decide to marry on their own, but that the state has no vested interest in them doing so, and thus no reason to apply incentives or rewards to them for doing so. Let's not forget that the modern legal status is not "marriage". It's a set of benefits (mostly) granted to people who get married. Those benefits act as an incentive to get people to marry before they procreate, so as to avoid the problem I mentioned earlier.

And before someone say's "but people get married even without the incentives!", you're missing the point. They get "married", but they don't enter into the same legal contracts that we want them to enter into. If the marriages people would choose to enter into all on their own covered all the bases with regards to child responsibility, we wouldn't need a legal status by the same name. We need to get heterosexual couples to enter into a very specific type of marriage contract. We have no need for homosexual couples to do so. They're free to enter into any sort of marriage they want.

#554gbaji,
Posted:Sep 19 2012 at 6:52 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) What does respect have to do with it? Are you seriously arguing that any time we fail to apply some government status to someone, we're disrespecting them? Where the **** does that bizarre idea come from?

It is in the eyes of the government which is all that matters in the "legalize SSM" debate.

The government is only concerned with the legal status though, so that's a completely circular statement. Traditional marriage does not require a special legal status from the government, and it's somewhat shocking that so many people think it does. What's happened is that we've been so successful at getting heterosexual couples to choose to file for this status as part of "getting married" that we now think that if you aren't able to, you can't get married.

It's like arguing that you can't recycle if the government doesn't pay you to do it. Of course you can. We create government programs that subsidize recycling efforts in order to encourage people to recycle more. But you can certainly separate your trash and take them to a recycling business all on your own if you want to. It's just that many people will not do so unless the city gives them a blue bin and picks it up for them. Similarly, many heterosexual couples would not enter into a sufficiently binding legal marriage contract if the government didn't create one for them and then provide rewards for entering into it.

Heterosexual couples would marry whether the status (and attendant rewards) existed or not, just as *** couples can marry right now. But most of those marriages would not contain sufficient legal protection in the case of procreation. The status (and rewards) exist to try to get heterosexual couples to enter into a specific legal contract when they marry. What's happened though is that we've been so successful at this, that somewhere along the way we've forgotten that the status is not actually "marriage". Forgotten it to such a degree that folks like you will fight and argue when someone like me points it out.

Which is amusing I guess, but not terribly useful to the topic at hand. If our current legal status was required to be married, then all marriages which existed prior to the creation of said status were not really marriages. Which I would hope we can all agree is an absurd claim. *** couples today have exactly the same "right" to marry as people have had for thousands of years. ****. We can argue that *** couples have more freedom in this regard, since the state spends no special effort attempting to coerce them into entering into any specific type of marriage contract. But rather than recognize that freedom, they cry that somehow they're being denied their rights because the government wont make them do something.

And that's the utterly amazing irony of this. Not only have many people forgotten what marriage is, they also have no freaking clue what freedom is. You don't get freedom by being the recipient of a government incentive program. Quite the opposite. Sadly, it's not surprising that the same people who talk about the "right" to free health care can't grasp this concept.

The government is only concerned with the legal status though, so that's a completely circular statement.

The only "marriage" status that's relevant to discuss in the SSM debate is the state-recognized status. The debate is to legalize SSM, not for permission to call some unrecognized status "marriage" on your Facebook page.

If you can't understand that, you have no place talking about the subject at all.

#557gbaji,
Posted:Sep 19 2012 at 7:30 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I understand it just fine. Do you? Can you honestly look back at all the comments made by folks on your own side in this thread (and many many others) and say that they're all just talking about the legal status? And I don't mean what they're fighting for, but the arguments they use for why *** couples should get it. I'm the one who's constantly pointing out that just because there's a criteria for qualifying for a government status, this does not mean that those who don't qualify are being denied any rights.

And yet, I'm usually the only one on this forum who argues his position based on the actual legal status and what it does instead of some broad emotional appeal about the subject of marriage in general.

Holy crap, I just got bit by a radioactive spider.

____________________________

George Carlin wrote:

I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.

If the SSM debate restricted itself solely to an analysis of the legal status, it's criteria, and benefits, you'd be correct. But the second the argument shifts to talk of the "right to marry", or makes a broader claim that allow same *** couples to marry shovels them off into second class citizenship status, you're not limiting yourself to just that legal status.

The "right to marry" is based on the legal definition of marriage, The only one that matters.

#562Almalieque,
Posted:Sep 19 2012 at 7:42 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) But it's not. The question going through the courts is if two people of the same *** can marry. Your sexuality is irrelevant.

Ok, sure. I'm not about to worry about quibbling on that since it detracts from the point that the government observed status of marriage is the only one that matters in this debate. The courts have determined and repeatedly upheld that marriage -- the state recognized legal status of marriage for the court's purposes -- is a fundamental right of man and can not be abridged without some significant reason.

So the legal question for the courts is: Is there a significant enough reason to prevent SSM that's worthy of taking away that fundamental right?

That question will never be answered with something like "Well, you can just SAY you're married" or "If you just get a contract on your own, that's good enough" because that answer completely fails to address the court's question.

2. Ladies can get artificially inseminated whether they are het or *******.

Correct, but irrelevant. She is choosing to inseminate herself in a manner which ensures that there is no responsible biological partner involved. She chooses to take that responsibility on herself. She has no expectation of parental support by said partner and thus has no need of the state stepping in and creating a legal status which ensures that said support will happen without requiring her to spend the time/money pressing the issue in the courts.

If I am reading this right, say we have a married man and woman. By your logic, if the woman get's artificially inseminated, the man has no legal responsibility to the child. Is that what you are saying? (At least, a man could argue that, after the fact, and by your argument, be fine, unless she spent time/money pressing the issue in the courts)

I know your argument for why we support heterosexual marriage (for the children, from what I can tell) but how exactly does that affect you?

Because, and I kid you not, Gbaji's argument is that he has to pay higher taxes, if homosexuals get spouse benefits just like everyone else. And that's not fair on him, or other taxpayers. Because he doesn't get the return of of the homosexual couple producing children, who will become productive, tax paying members of society, further down the road when Gbaji is older.

We pay spouse benefits to heteros because they're BREEDERS for us all, doncha know? That's why Gbaji wants as many heteros to marry as possible. To keep his civilisation, culture and economy going for him to live in.

I know your argument for why we support heterosexual marriage (for the children, from what I can tell) but how exactly does that affect you?

Because, and I kid you not, Gbaji's argument is that he has to pay higher taxes, if homosexuals get spouse benefits just like everyone else. And that's not fair on him, or other taxpayers. Because he doesn't get the return of of the homosexual couple producing children, who will become productive, tax paying members of society, further down the road when Gbaji is older.

We pay spouse benefits to heteros because they're BREEDERS for us all, doncha know? That's why Gbaji wants as many heteros to marry as possible. To keep his civilisation, culture and economy going for him to live in.

Edited, Sep 20th 2012 1:42am by Aripyanfar

I think hetero's getting married when they know full well they're not gonna have babies should have to pay a DINK tax.

#569Almalieque,
Posted:Sep 20 2012 at 6:23 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) If I understand this correctly, you are confusing two different topics into one. An argument was made on couples having the ability to produce a child not raise a child.

I don't claim to know the court system, but I think a man has a case to void any child liability if his wife decided to artificially inseminate herself without any agreement

Traditionally, the courts are overwhelmingly in favor of putting two people on the hook for supporting a child if its at all possible. The man might "have a case" in this event but I'd give him equal odds of losing it if not greater.

#571Almalieque,
Posted:Sep 20 2012 at 7:16 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I can see that. If she got in debt without him knowing, he will be more than likely liable, but if she cheated and gotten pregnant, probably not. So, this case is probably somewhere in the middle.

There's so many great things about the SSM arguments here. Mostly they're almost identical to when people were arguing against interracial marriages. Also, they're not arguing against same *** marriage, but dudes fucking dudes because they still watch lesbians every chance they get. Not only that, but not one of them take into account how awesome it'll be once *** marriage is the normal, and we'll get tv shows based around *** divorce, which will be one of the most awesome shows to ever exist.

____________________________

George Carlin wrote:

I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.

2. Ladies can get artificially inseminated whether they are het or *******.

Correct, but irrelevant. She is choosing to inseminate herself in a manner which ensures that there is no responsible biological partner involved. She chooses to take that responsibility on herself. She has no expectation of parental support by said partner and thus has no need of the state stepping in and creating a legal status which ensures that said support will happen without requiring her to spend the time/money pressing the issue in the courts.

Almalieque wrote:

Jophiel wrote:

Almalieque wrote:

I don't claim to know the court system, but I think a man has a case to void any child liability if his wife decided to artificially inseminate herself without any agreement

Traditionally, the courts are overwhelmingly in favor of putting two people on the hook for supporting a child if its at all possible. The man might "have a case" in this event but I'd give him equal odds of losing it if not greater.

I can see that. If she got in debt without him knowing, he will be more than likely liable, but if she cheated and gotten pregnant, probably not. So, this case is probably somewhere in the middle.

In any case, even if the husband is forced to raise the child, he is still irrelevant in the creation of the child and him raising it may very well vary from state to state.

I watched this and remembered at some point Alma argued that *** rights & civil rights arguments weren't similar.

After he kindly goes & fucks himself, feel free to carry on.

Edited, Oct 21st 2012 10:27pm by Omegavegeta

____________________________

"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin

#582Almalieque,
Posted:Oct 22 2012 at 5:12 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I apologize for being able to see the difference between slavery vs the ability to marry the person of your choice. Maybe one day, you'll be able to as well.

So I bothered to watch that entire video, and I think out of the two of us Alma, I might have been the only one.

High points: People who are against *** marriage are like pedophiles, neither of them are directly hurting anybody. New York will suffer from overpopulation due to gays moving there. People who are afraid of thunder and lightening are abnormal, because normal people are not afraid of nature. Because of *** marriage, there will be more tsunamis and the sun gonna take you out.

I propose this thread gets wrapped inside a capsule and shot up into space. When it reaches 28miles Kao, with one of his many remote control devices, will blow up the capsule. Then when all the letters of all the words start dropping through the atmosphere and reach the speed of sound - we'll hear Alma's voice on the wind.

I apologize for being able to see the difference between slavery vs the ability to marry the person of your choice.

So do I, you cowardly ******! Much like the abolishment of slavery & the civil rights movement (which in turn spawned the *** rights movement) lead to legalized miscegenation, the abolishment of homosexual persecution & discrimination has lead to the (eventually) *** marriage movement.

Religion isn't an excuse to be a ****, if you don't believe me rewatch the video. Freedom of religion is also freedom from religion, for those of us who aren't ignorant douches.

Edited, Oct 22nd 2012 1:29pm by Omegavegeta

____________________________

"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin

#588Almalieque,
Posted:Oct 22 2012 at 3:18 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) If you took that as the high point of the video, then you fail at comprehension. Especially given the text of this conversation. The "high point" is that there is a difference between black civil rights and homosexual rights.

I see how you conveniently left out the preface "Now, I'm not going to say that there weren't any isolated incidents where maybe some gays were attacked, jumped beat down or whatever.but when you compare that to what the so called blacks had to endure..."

I probably should have included it, because it's funnier that way. He tries to make the point that homosexuals haven't experienced the oppression black have, then realizes how little he knows about homosexual oppression and tries to marginalize any counter examples, then completely forgets why he bothered to marginalize those incidents and goes on to state how he can't think of a single example of a homosexual being lynched, beaten, or denied a job because of their sexuality. To be fair, he probably can't.

Almalieque wrote:

Now I'll admit, he went on a tangent, but my point was in the first 6 mins, you know, the topic of this conversation.

Your point was that gays haven't been lynched, beaten, or denied career opportunities due to their sexuality, except that they have but those incidents don't count? How all the rights they want, they already have, but don't?

I see how you conveniently left out the preface "Now, I'm not going to say that there weren't any isolated incidents where maybe some gays were attacked, jumped beat down or whatever.but when you compare that to what the so called blacks had to endure..."

"I'm not sayin' you all haven't been attacked, jumped, beat down or whatever, I'm just saying you need to be attacked, jumped and beat down MORE for it to really count..."

Hey, maybe a couple more *** kids tortured and tied to fence posts, left to die and they'll be worth counting, huh? God, they can only dream of how glorious that day will be...

#591Almalieque,
Posted:Oct 22 2012 at 4:24 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Nope. That wasn't the intent. I was simply putting up a video to show how irrelevant it is that you found a guy on the internet agreeing with you.

I was referring to natural red heads of course. Even if they dye their hair, they are still red heads.

I was not in any denigrating the plight of the ginger, merely pointing out that, you know, a homosexual can marry someone of the opposite *** and still be a homosexual. Just like if someone who is black marries someone who is white is still black. See, we agree. None of these people has any control over that particular trait that we are focusing on, was my point. And the fact that you had become a little more enlightened by pointing this out in your previous post, that was also part of my point.

You really aren't very good at coherent arguments or reading comprehension, are you?

Requiring slavery as a pre-condition is taking an extremely narrow view of civil rights in the United States. Apparently you've decided that "civil rights" belongs strictly to African Americans. Completely erroneous but there's sense in debating it if that's your stance.

Actually, he was pointing out the fact that the struggle that homosexuals suffer from are no different than every other group have suffered from. Fat people, skinny people, nerds, geeks, goths, whores, short people, handicap, red heads, immigrants, foreigners. etc. have all been beaten up, attacked and physically and emotionally harmed for simply those traits described.

And we have laws protecting them. Not every state protects employees from termination due to sexual orientation. There is also a difference between individual acts of hate and institutionalized persecution. Some putz on the street calling you a ****** and a state prohibiting you from adopting a child due to your sexual orientation are worlds apart.

Almalieque wrote:

Same applies to this scenario. If you are going to compare civil struggles, you factor out the things that are common in all civil right movement, such as hate, fear, mistreatment and discrimination.

How convenient for an argument that the two movements are entirely incomparable if you disregard everything similar about them.

Almalieque wrote:

I'm not going to waste time articulating something that you obviously understand.

So you'll just waste time linking a youtube video about it instead?

Almalieque wrote:

Nope. That wasn't the intent. I was simply putting up a video to show how irrelevant it is that you found a guy on the internet agreeing with you.

Are you doing that thing where you merge everyone who disagrees with you into one borg collective devoid of individuality?